Jump to content

Photo
- - - - -

Kritik 2NC


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 TheSnowball

TheSnowball

    Hall of Fame

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,406 posts
853
Excellent
  • Name:Ryan

Posted 30 March 2017 - 10:12 AM

Hey all,
I'm cutting a K file and I want to hear opinions on how to handle the block.
Which of these sounds best?

1. Give a separate overview with [K outweighs, turns case], [our impact first/prior question], [root cause], and a brief description of the K proper, then the framework debate, then K proper starting by extending the 1NC stuff.

2. Same as 1 but mix the 1NC extensions and link and impact and alt debate into the line-by-line. The only thing with this is that the 2AC might be a random mix of perms, theory, no-link, etc. so it's hard to know when to do, for example, the link debate.

3. Put the 1NC extensions and link, impact, and alt right into the overview, then do framework, then straight-up line-by-line the 2AC referencing the overview.

Thanks,
Snowball
  • 0
If you want your Baudrillard link, you can pry it from my cold, biologically dead hands.

Daily Evidence Card!

Exodus Files!

#2 NickDB8

NickDB8

    Exodus Files Forum Representative

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts
351
Excellent
  • Name:Nick
  • School:Emporia HS

Posted 30 March 2017 - 11:17 AM

I go O/V, then cover links (and answers to 2ac link args, including perms), impacts (a2 2ac impact args, defense and turns), alt (a2 2ac alt args), then FW and other theory stuff like condo


  • 1

Exodus Files - Updated 5/21! Grab our new STEM Affirmative for the upcoming education topic!

Research Tools


#3 TheSnowball

TheSnowball

    Hall of Fame

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,406 posts
853
Excellent
  • Name:Ryan

Posted 30 March 2017 - 11:52 AM

I go O/V, then cover links (and answers to 2ac link args, including perms), impacts (a2 2ac impact args, defense and turns), alt (a2 2ac alt args), then FW and other theory stuff like condo


What if the 2AC is really scattered? Wouldn't it be confusing to flow while jumping around a bunch?
  • 0
If you want your Baudrillard link, you can pry it from my cold, biologically dead hands.

Daily Evidence Card!

Exodus Files!

#4 NickDB8

NickDB8

    Exodus Files Forum Representative

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts
351
Excellent
  • Name:Nick
  • School:Emporia HS

Posted 30 March 2017 - 12:15 PM

That's true, I guess you could go straight down on the LBL after the links, impacts, and alt? idk


  • 0

Exodus Files - Updated 5/21! Grab our new STEM Affirmative for the upcoming education topic!

Research Tools


#5 LOLZNO

LOLZNO

    Junior-Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
14
Good

Posted 30 March 2017 - 03:14 PM

Hey all,
I'm cutting a K file and I want to hear opinions on how to handle the block.
Which of these sounds best?

1. Give a separate overview with [K outweighs, turns case], [our impact first/prior question], [root cause], and a brief description of the K proper, then the framework debate, then K proper starting by extending the 1NC stuff.

2. Same as 1 but mix the 1NC extensions and link and impact and alt debate into the line-by-line. The only thing with this is that the 2AC might be a random mix of perms, theory, no-link, etc. so it's hard to know when to do, for example, the link debate.

3. Put the 1NC extensions and link, impact, and alt right into the overview, then do framework, then straight-up line-by-line the 2AC referencing the overview.

Thanks,
Snowball

This depends a lot on how complicated your K is. If it is a relatively straight-forward neoliberalism/cap K, then what does the overview do?

If it is something complex, or your K has some tricks that distinguish itself, then you can think about making an overview. Otherwise just do straight LBL because a competent 2AC is going to answer every part of the K, and almost every judge appreciates when it when everything lines up nicely on their flow.

 

Most 2ACs to Ks go:

Framework

Perms

Link Arguments

Impact Answers

Alt Arguments

 

Another time an overview would be helpful is if the aff doesn't answer a part of the K like the impact, alt, or links, and then just doing that work on top of the flow.

 

So for example, if your overview is just to talk about prior question and root cause, do that on the 2AC's argument against your impact. It makes you look 20 times better. However, the reason going straight down does not work is because you'll get baited into being top-heavy and then undercovering some offense against the alt on the bottom. To combat this issue, you can do two main things:

 

A) Time your blocks/have an idea of how long they take you so you can figure out where you can cut down if necessary

 

B) If the 2AC puts a lot offense against the K on the bottom, answer that offense first, then go to the top of the K. The judge will not drop you for dropping one of the 20 perms the 2AC made with no explanation, but they sure as hell will drop you for dropping an impact turn to the K or alternative.


  • 1

#6 HEYEYEYEYEYEY

HEYEYEYEYEYEY

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 42 posts
18
Good

Posted 30 March 2017 - 04:06 PM

really depends on your judge. If its a policy judge then you would want to do impact on top and then line-by-line. I would have an o/v on every part of the debate.


  • 0

#7 vmanAA738

vmanAA738

    Top Speaker

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 558 posts
162
Excellent
  • Name:Vinay
  • School:UC Berkeley

Posted 30 March 2017 - 04:26 PM

I think for the K- first thing you should do is make sure you have a small overview not a big overview-

i'll advocate for this because long overviews for judges are

a) hard to flow,

B) generally not flowed well (judges only catch part of it or think only certain ideas are important)

c) sometimes annoying if the overview creates lots of embedded clash on the flow; the short overview points out only what's important and generally explains the thesis of the K- basically what you are arguing with the K

the short overview should contain the thesis of the K- basically what you are arguing, and explaining how the alt functions

then just go down the flow- FW debate, then the link debate, impact debate, then the alt debate, then perm debate on bottom


  • 0

in the UC machine


#8 TheSnowball

TheSnowball

    Hall of Fame

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,406 posts
853
Excellent
  • Name:Ryan

Posted 30 March 2017 - 05:45 PM

So if the 2AC is something like:
-Framework
-Case outweighs
-Perm
-No link
-No impact
-Perm
-No link
-Impact turn
-Theory
-Alt can't solve
-Perm
-No link

Can the 2NC still group all the link arguments without it being confusing? I would think it'd be better to do a 'link debate' extending the 1NC arguments and reading new links but answer their no-link arguments on a line by line basis.

Edited by TheSnowball, 30 March 2017 - 05:45 PM.

  • 0
If you want your Baudrillard link, you can pry it from my cold, biologically dead hands.

Daily Evidence Card!

Exodus Files!

#9 LOLZNO

LOLZNO

    Junior-Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
14
Good

Posted 30 March 2017 - 05:49 PM

So if the 2AC is something like:
-Framework
-Case outweighs
-Perm
-No link
-No impact
-Perm
-No link
-Impact turn
-Theory
-Alt can't solve
-Perm
-No link

Can the 2NC still group all the link arguments without it being confusing? I would think it'd be better to do a 'link debate' extending the 1NC arguments and reading new links but answer their no-link arguments on a line by line basis.

So let's assume you have a link block to read, I would read the 'link block' on the most pressing link argument, and then respond to the other ones specifically, if your link block is any good, it should do some of that work for you.


  • 0

#10 CynicClinic

CynicClinic

    Loquacious!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 268 posts
304
Excellent

Posted 30 March 2017 - 05:57 PM

So if the 2AC is something like:
-Framework
-Case outweighs
-Perm
-No link
-No impact
-Perm
-No link
-Impact turn
-Theory
-Alt can't solve
-Perm
-No link

Can the 2NC still group all the link arguments without it being confusing? I would think it'd be better to do a 'link debate' extending the 1NC arguments and reading new links but answer their no-link arguments on a line by line basis.

 

I can't speak for other judges, but that 2AC flow would bug me considerably from an organizational standpoint. I would be mentally begging for the 2NC to fix it by grouping or otherwise restructuring the arguments in an intelligent manner.


Edited by CynicClinic, 30 March 2017 - 05:58 PM.

  • 0

Nonegfiat. (2017, June 18). China VDebate- TheTrashDebater(Aff) v. Nonegfiat(Neg). Retrieved June 18, 2017, from https://www.cross-x....atneg/?p=939106

 

The 1NR is OK Computer.


#11 TheSnowball

TheSnowball

    Hall of Fame

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,406 posts
853
Excellent
  • Name:Ryan

Posted 30 March 2017 - 05:58 PM

So let's assume you have a link block to read, I would read the 'link block' on the most pressing link argument, and then respond to the other ones specifically, if your link block is any good, it should do some of that work for you.


So maybe do a brief thesis level overview on the K proper page then line-by-line until the first link argument and then do the link debate, then line-by-line until the next impact argument and then do the impact debate, then line-by-line until the next alt argument and do the alt debate?
  • 0
If you want your Baudrillard link, you can pry it from my cold, biologically dead hands.

Daily Evidence Card!

Exodus Files!

#12 LOLZNO

LOLZNO

    Junior-Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
14
Good

Posted 30 March 2017 - 06:04 PM

So maybe do a brief thesis level overview on the K proper page then line-by-line until the first link argument and then do the link debate, then line-by-line until the next impact argument and then do the impact debate, then line-by-line until the next alt argument and do the alt debate?

Pretty much, it keeps the judge's flows coherent. In your scenario though, CynicClinic is kinda right, if I was judging that 2AC, I would definitely drop the 2A on some speaker points, but I would not want the neg block to take it upon themselves to fix it. The negative controls the order of the case, the affirmative controls the order of the offcase.


  • 0

#13 vmanAA738

vmanAA738

    Top Speaker

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 558 posts
162
Excellent
  • Name:Vinay
  • School:UC Berkeley

Posted 30 March 2017 - 07:15 PM

So if the 2AC is something like:
-Framework
-Case outweighs
-Perm
-No link
-No impact
-Perm
-No link
-Impact turn
-Theory
-Alt can't solve
-Perm
-No link

Can the 2NC still group all the link arguments without it being confusing? I would think it'd be better to do a 'link debate' extending the 1NC arguments and reading new links but answer their no-link arguments on a line by line basis.

I think it would be fine to group the link arguments together- it would be like- "group the link debate- here's 4 ways they link (explain link debate here)- they say 2AC 4 but this is wrong (insert why)", then deal with any more link args, then read new links if you want

 

 

So maybe do a brief thesis level overview on the K proper page then line-by-line until the first link argument and then do the link debate, then line-by-line until the next impact argument and then do the impact debate, then line-by-line until the next alt argument and do the alt debate?

I would disagree on this-

 

it would be best to group the arguments together based on what part of the debate it's addressing (i.e. link, impact, alt) just to keep the flow unclustered and also to take control of the flow to prevent the aff from gaining a perceptual advantage in that they can dictate the pace of arguments and make the neg look like it's playing defense or catchup- if you do the grouping and control the flow you gain a perceptual argument and you can make more arguments apply all over the flow rather than line by lining where you might make only 1 or 2 args per line


  • 1

in the UC machine


#14 TheSnowball

TheSnowball

    Hall of Fame

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,406 posts
853
Excellent
  • Name:Ryan

Posted 30 March 2017 - 07:34 PM

I think I've got a good idea of what to do. Thanks for the input everyone.
  • 0
If you want your Baudrillard link, you can pry it from my cold, biologically dead hands.

Daily Evidence Card!

Exodus Files!

#15 HEYEYEYEYEYEY

HEYEYEYEYEYEY

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 42 posts
18
Good

Posted 31 March 2017 - 06:59 AM

I think I've got a good idea of what to do. Thanks for the input everyone.

 

Could you email me the file your working on? I am a little curious.


  • 0





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users